(jwuJasvvZ^, X/vUAJtsivO 

(LdAsitAA ~tl) t$\JL &C&-cCoiA trj 
'tftdL. CZuvJbijXfiyv oLU&LcZ' , ‘S.C. 
<rw i&JL (Jtrv^iturri <r| /x^uatuvu. 


\ 


4 




















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































4 ? 









ADDRESS 

J 

T0 M'Y 


THE ELECTORS OF CHARLESTON DISTRICT. 


SOUTH CAROLINA, 


ON THE SUBJECT OF 


THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 


.'Pin ct\ ncy 7 Wen ry La.tyra yi s, 



WASHINGTON" ; 


















E -f f f 



. 






















' 4 * 




- 












* 

« 

l c 

* r/ 




/ > ‘ i ii/ ) I J A V 

M 







ADDRESS. 


To the Electors of Charleston Congressional District: 

Fellow-citizens : I respectfully venture to address you on a subj 
in which we have a deep and common interest: the present state of 
question respecting the Abolition of Slavery in the States, and in the I 
trict of Columbia. 

Under any circumstances, the expression of my sentiments on this 
sorbing topic would be only an ordinary privilege, to which I am entib 
as a citizen of Carolina ; but, under the peculiar circumstances that hi 
recently arisen, and from a movement, too, in relation to this subjc 
which originated with myself, 1 feel called upon, by the highest obli 
tions of public duty, to explain the motives by which 1 have been gove 
ed, and the great general objects it has been my endeavor to accompli 

Generally speaking, no man is denounced until he has actually commit 
some overt act; but I was bitterly assailed even before my resolution 1 
been considered by the House, and before an opportunity was afforded 
to explain my objects. Generally speaking, too, no man is condemned w* 
out the poor privilege of being heard in his defence ; but the Telegt\ 
and other papers, while they have continued without intermission to 
vile me, have not condescended to publish the remarks I delivered wl 
my resolution was presented to the House. The readers of those pape 
therefore, have seen nothing but the vile fabrications invented by j 
enemies ; and the inference is equally natural and irresistible, that I m 
have suffered in the public estimation, to the exact extent to which < 
fabrications alluded to have created an unfavorable impression on t 
public mind. Fortunately, however, the closing of the Telegraph agai 
me, cannot entirely prevent my being heard by the community of Chari 
ton ; and, most fortunately, I now address a people who know me w< 
and who will not be easily persuaded, by such a paper as the Telegra / 
to suspect the conduct, or destroy the character of one who, while he c 
have no motive upon earth to be unfaithful to their interests, has eve 
motive that can actuate the heart of man to desire and deserve their < 
teem and approbation*. 

If there be truth in man, I can say with truth that, since my arrival 
this place, I have been zealously and constantly engaged in attending 
the interests of numerous individuals committed to my care, and in e 
deavoring to procure the passage of several important bills for the gc 



4 


al benefit of my native city. Strange, indeed, would it be, that apub- 
: servant, who has been ardently striving, not only to have justice done 
those of his constituents who have claims against the Government, but 
procure important public establishments, and large appropriations ot 
iblic money, for the advancement of Charleston and the State at large, 
ould have proved recreant to the community he represents upon their 
eatest interest, and one, indeed, in which all others may be said to be 
eluded ! Is it treason that claimants who have long suffered by neg- 
*t, should at length be paid ? or that the commerce of the city should 
promoted, and the industry of our mechanics stimulated and rewarded, 
d the value of property enhanced by the establishment of public works, 
d the consequent liberal expenditure amongst us of the public treasure ? 
)d knows I do not mean it as treason; and yet I have no doubt that if 
ery measure 1 have proposed should succeed, and appropriations to the 
lount of hundreds of thousands should be made for Charleston, my con¬ 
tinents would be told by the Telegraph, that my success in any or all 
these undertakings, should be considered in no other light than as a 
ward to me for my desertion of the South on the subject of slavery, 
d as a base attempt on the part of Congress to corrupt the people by 
-ing them a portion of the public spoils ! What, then, am I to do ? If I 
nothing, well indeed might my constituents upbraid me as neglectful 
itheir interests ! If I attempt to do any thing, the very attempt to bene- 
them is tortured by my enemies into the evidence of treachery ! 
Situated as I am, however—unjustly and bitterly assailed as I have 
en —it is my intention to speak freely and distinctly upon the subject 
on which my enemies, for reasons best known to themselves, have 
)ught proper to arraign me at the bar of my country. That bar is theirs 
well as mine. They are no more above it than I am, humble as I may 
- and, thank God, 1 never in my life was less afraid than now to stand 
lore my country; knowing, as I do, that the people are just, and will 
right; that truth is mighty, and will prevail ; and that a generous com- 
nity, like that of Charleston, will not allow a man to be trodden down, 
ainst whom no other offence can be truly alleged than an honest differ - 
ze of opinion with some of his colleagues, as to the best mode of pro- 
eding in reference to the subject of slavery, for the true interest of our 
mmon State, and the general welfare of our common country ! 

Before I enter upon the explanation, however, which I am about to 
er, permit me to notice and repel one or two newspaper calumnies 
jiich have doubtless been mainly relied on to effect my political destruc- 
m. One of them is that, when I said in my place upon the floor, “ that 
was responsible to my constituents, but to no individual, be he who he 
ay,” I alluded to Mr. Calhoun. Now, this is utterly untrue, and the 
litor of the Telegraph knows it. The remark was intended for him- 
lf, and no one else, and constituted part of my reply to his first article 
'•ainst me. The object of this assertion, however, is too palpable to be 
istaken. It is to create the impression that I had spoked against Mr. 
alhoun, and of course, to crush me by the superior weight and popular- 
y of that distinguished Senator. But, while I positively deny the fact, 
is nothing was further from my mind, nor have I any feelings, personal 
• political, towards that gentleman, but those of the utmost kindness and 
ispect,) yet, 1 trust, it is no offence to say that, whilst I adhere to my 




5 

principles, and look to the public good, I shall always feel myself at lil 
erty to differ with any colleague with whom I cannot conscientious! 
concur, whether it be upon a constitutional principle, or a mere quej 
tion of expediency. If I am not allowed this privilege—if 1 am require, 
not only to surrender my judgment, but to violate my conscience—then a* 
I subjected to a degree of slavery to which I am sure my constituent 
never intended to reduce me, and to which, most certainly, J never ca 
submit. Another calumny is, that I did not consult my colleagues. Thi 
is also untrue. 1 consulted all of them, with the exception of two. Som 
of them thought I had better not offer my proposition, because a differer, 
ground had been previously taken; but they give me full credit for m 
motives, and will, and have, done justice to my character. Another cal 
umny is, that my resolution was concerted with leading members of th 
administration party. This is also utterly untrue. It was my own; i 
originated entirely with myself; nor did I frame, or alter, or modify, 
word of it, by the advice or suggestion of any human being. But, “ i 
was opposed, 5 ’ says one of my revilers, “ to the views of the most de 
voted friends and representatives of the South. 55 To this I answer tha 
what are the views alluded to, I know not; but this I do know, that th 
South has not a more devoted friend or faithful representative than my 
self. Upon that point I yield to no man; but, if opposition to my reso 
lution is a just criterion of Southern fidelity, then it must follow neces 
sarily that there are but eight or ten Southern delegates who are realb 
faithful, seeing that out of ninety-odd slaveholding votes, the variou, 
branches of my resolution were sustained by an average of nearly eigh 
ty. Will not the slaveholding people think calmly and dispassionately 
upon such a fact as this ? 

Ever since the formation of our present Government, a portion of the 
inhabitants of the Northern States have regarded the existence of slavery 
as a national evil, and at almost every session of Congress, from that pe¬ 
riod, petitions have been presented, praying for its abolition. The two 
first petitions that were presented were as far back as 1790. They 
prayed for general abolition in all t|je States. They were received by 
Congress, and referred to a committee , of which the venerable Mr. Mad¬ 
ison was chairman. After due deliberation, that committee reported a 
resolution, which was adopted, declaring. “ that Congress has no au¬ 
thority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment oi 
them, in any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to 
provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may re¬ 
quire. 55 In 1791, the District of Columbia w r as ceded to the General 
Government, and then that portion of the people of the free States just 
alluded to, continued to present petitions of a similar character, but pray¬ 
ing particularly for the abolition of slavery, and the slave trade, in the 
District of Columbia. And it is worthy of especial observation, that, 
from the adoption of Mr. Madison’s resolution to the present session, all 
memorials of this kind, whether praying for general emancipation, or 
confined exclusively to the District of Columbia, were always received 
by both Houses of Congress, and either laid upon the table, or referred 
to the Committee on the District, where, by common consent, they re¬ 
mained unnoticed, and unacted on. It is also worthy of remark, that, as 
the memorials of 1790, in relation to the States, were, at the instance of 


6 


, r. Madison, referred and reported on, so, in 1830—’1, memorials, in rela- 
,n to the District of. Columbia, were, at the instance of Mr. Doddridge, 
Virginia, referred to the District Committee, of which he was the 
jjairman, and from which he presented a brief, but emphatic and vigor- 
c s, report against them. There are other remarkable instances of the 
geption and. reference of memorials of this character. In 1805, a peti- 
2 >n from Pennsylvania, against slavery in the States, was committed, 

; th a view to a negative report, and amongst the slaveholding members 
io voted for its commitment, I find the name of the late venerable 
Rmter. In 1811, several petitions against the slave trade in the States 
( 3 re referred to a committee, but I cannot ascertain that any report was 
pde upon them. In 1816, the late John Randolph, of \ irginia, offered 
Resolution, which was adopted without a division, for the appointment 
u a committee u to inquire into the traffic in slaves, in the District of 
(•ilumbia, and whether any legislative measures were necessary for 
stting a stop to the same”—a resolution, which I not only notice as il- 
rating Mr. Randolph’s opinion of the power of Congress in the Dis- 
[jct, but as another instance of the reference of the subject of slavery 
r a select committee. I will only add to this chain of evidence upon 
is point, every link of which originated with distinguished citi- 
$ns of Carolina and Virginia, that since I have been a member of the 
louse, all abolition memorials were uniformly received, in both Houses 
{ Congress , (until the present session f and either laid upon the table, 
referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, of which sen¬ 
ior Tyler, and Mr. Chinn, (both Virginians,) were the chairmen, on 
ye part of the different branches of the legislature to which they re- 
lectively belonged. No objection was made to this course, during the 
hole of .that time, by any Southern member , in either portion of the cap- 
pi; and if it be treason to the South, surely the inquiry may well be 
lade, Why is it that no Southern Senator, or member, ever perceived it 
ntil now ? Why is it that, year after year, they have allowed these me¬ 
morials to be received, and referred, in silence, and never knew, or felt, 
>il now , that they were insulting to their constituents, and incendiary in 
peir tendency ? Where were all their zeal and fiery indignation, during 
j ll that time ? And why is it that they have only been enkindled 
\ow 9 

' Such, then, (the practice of receiving and referring) has been the in¬ 
variable policy in relation to this subject. 

> At the present session, however, this policy has been departed from, 
-lot by the Southern delegation generally, but by a few, very few, mem- 
mrs. from the slaveholding States. I will not say that their object, or 
inotive, was to agitate the subject for political effect, (for I am unwilling 
jo believe this of any of them, and, most assuredly, I do not believe it as re¬ 
gards any of my colleagues,) but I must say, that I thought it wrong, and 
jhat I knew it was in decided opposition to the general judgment and 
jisposition of the members of both Houses, and from all sections of 
,pe Union. My own opinion was, that the question of slavery should 
lot be discussed in Congress, if it could possibly be avoided ; and that 
Nothing should force the South into such a discussion, unless some hostile 
proposition should have been brought forward, or some overt act com¬ 
mitted against us, from any other quarter. I believed that this was the 


7 


opinion and desire of my own constituents, and of the great body of the 
South. The determination was taken, however, to force the Legislature 
of the Union into votes, upon the question of reception, and the uncon¬ 
stitutionality of Federal legislation upon slavery, in the District of Co* 
lumbia. Now, let me say, once for all, that I entirely and heartily con¬ 
curred in the desire to reject those petitions at the threshold, or, in 
other words, u to kick them out of the halls of Congress.” No man who 
really knows me, can doubt my sincerity upon this point. But it w T as 
manifest to my mind, that the blow, apparently aimed at the abolition¬ 
ists, by the motions above mentioned, was, in reality, a benefit and noJ 
an injury to them, and would inevitably rebound, with most disastrous 
effect, against the South. Under these circumstances, I determined tc 
pursue a different, and, as I honestly believe, a more effectual and de¬ 
cisive course. I, therefore, offered a resolution, which you have already 
seen, for the appointment of a select committee, “with instructions to re¬ 
port that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere, ir 
any way , with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this 
confederacy, and that Congress ought not to interfere, in any way 
with slavery in the District of Columbia, because it would be a vi¬ 
olation of the public faith , unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the 
Union.” Here let me observe, that 1 consider “a violation of the 
public faith ” as substantially tantamount to a positive declaration 
that the interference alluded to would be unconstitutional. It is my 
intention to demonstrate this in the report which it has become my 
duty to prepare. And now, I ask my fellow-citizens seriously to consid¬ 
er, and candidly to decide, whether, as I have already succeeded in ob¬ 
taining a solemn declaration by Congress, that “ any interference with 
slavery in the District of Columbia would be a violation of the public 
faith,” if I should also succeed in procuring the adoption of a report, in¬ 
sisting and demonstrating that a violation of public faith is unconstitu¬ 
tional , and that , therefore , and upon that ground, Congress will not , and 
ought not , to interfere , in any way , with slavery in the District of Co¬ 
lumbia, whether, for doing this, I really deserve to be stigmatized as a 
traitor to the South ? 

Whilst alluding to the outrageous denunciations, however, to which 1 
have been subjected, it is due to myself to say, to all, who, after this ex¬ 
planation, may still think proper to rtevile me, that, knowing the purity oj 
my motives, and my entire fidelity to the rights of the South, and having 
taken my stand calmly and deliberately upon principle, no system of vi¬ 
tuperation, however violent or infamous, shall drive me to a base sur¬ 
render of my honest convictions, or to a mean, time-serving subserviency 
to regain the good opinion of any man who has done me the gross injus¬ 
tice to suspect me. In the capacity in which 1 am acting here, I have a 
double responsibility : first to my God—and next to my constituents and 
country. As regards the first, I dare not, and will not violate my consci¬ 
ence ; nor will I forfeit or forego the approbation of Heaven and my own 
heart, where I know that I am right upon every principle of Christianity 
and patriotism, for any office or honor that man can confer. As regards 
my constituents, they have an unquestionable right to sit in judgment or 
my conduct. If they allow me to be swept away by the flood-gates o: 
calumny that have been opened on me, I shall bow, certainly not with- 


8 


out pain, but with entire resignation, to their will. No man values, or 
: can value, their esteem and confidence, more than I do. It has always 
*been my pride, not that they have given me office, but that i had their 
confidence. Deprive me of the one, and the other, to me, will have lost 
all its value. My constituents had honored me by confiding all their in¬ 
terests to my fidelity and prudence. I have felt deeply the responsibil¬ 
ity of my situation, and have done the best I could. I have obtained a 
^powerful and decisive vote in favor of Southern rights , and against 
'any interference whatever with slavery by the Federal Government. By 
the adoption of my resolutions, and particularly by the adoption of the 
report which will be predicated on them, the rights of the Southern 
States, as involved in that subject, are, and will be, recognised and set¬ 
tled upon an imperishable basis. Has any man done more ? Has any 
me attempted to do as much ? No, fellow-citizens. The only move¬ 
ments that were made, prior to the presentation of my propositions, were 
ipon the preliminary question of reception. Now, the moment that 
Question was started, I saw, not only that nothing could be gained by it, 
Sut that it would necessarily be the fruitful source of party contest and 
political agitation, and, consequently, of corresponding evils and dangers 
! o the South. I saw that it involved a great principle (the right of peti- 
ion) which the people of this country never would surrender, and which 
10 House of Representatives would dare to abrogate. I knew that upon 
‘ffiat question the whole of the free States would be united in solid 
jhalanx against us, and that the slave Stales would be divided: for, 
though 1 regret to say so,) there are members from slaveholding 
States who not only hold that Congress has no right to refuse to receive 
hese petitions, but who also advocate the authority of Congress to abol- 
l sh slavery in the District of Columbia. I saw clearly, therefore, the 
disastrous results to which a contest uyon the 7'ight of petition must in¬ 
evitably lead. I saw, that while it was taking a ground entirely unne¬ 
cessary to us, and of no possible practical importance in itself, (for really 
t is almost a distinction without a difference whether the House refuse 
o receive a petition, or instantly reject it after its reception,) yet that by 
fnaking a new issue , and changing the whole aspect of the question , it 
vould not only produce an endless and excited agitation of slavery 
vithin the House, but that it would necessarily increase the spirit and 
trength of the abolitionists , by giving them constitutional ground to 
Hand on , by enabling them to cry out that they were persecuted and dis- 
ranchised on account of slaves, and by inflaming the whole people of the 
lon-slavehoiding States, by the unnecessary invasion of what they con- 
! ider a most sacred and fundamental right. I knew well that the people 
? >f the free States wmuld feel upon this subject as my own constituents 
Vould, if they had sent a memorial here, and a motion had been made to 
efuse to receive it; and I knew also that the members from the free 
States would contend as warmly for the rights of their constituents, as I 
Should have felt it my duty, under similar circumstances, to have con- 
fended for the rights of mine. What then would have been the result of 
the contest upon this useless point ? What could it have been, but to 
• ugment the very evils against which we are contending, by giving the 
Jbolitionists a new and powerful ground, by arming them with a new and 
powerful weapon, by driving our friends from the field and putting our 


i 


9 


enemies in their place, and, in short, by making every citizen of the free 
States a practical abolitionist for the purpose of vindicating the abstract 
right of petitioning the government ? Could any gentleman have desired 
these results ? Most unquestionably not! But when all these evils had 
been produced—when the North had been inflamed against the South, 
and the South against the North, and the whole country should have 
been thrown into a state of moral convulsion, and the lines of separation 
drawn, deep and broad, between the contending parties—what then ? 
Why, then, perhaps the Telegraph would have told us what was next to 
be done. But, as regards the House, the result inevitably would have 
been that, when the vote was taken, we would have been defeated by 
an overwhelming majority: and then the petition would have gone to a 
committee, without instructions , and we should not only have gained 
nothing, but have actually sustained incalculable loss ! 

Now, my object was, to avoid this contest, and avert these conse¬ 
quences, by bringing up the whole subject of abolition , and procuring a 
strong and unequivocal condemnatory action upon that. And that has 
been done. By letting the right of petition alone, all parties united with 
me for the great object of the practical suppression of abolition. Yes, I 
say all parties, with very few exceptions. Look at the vote upon my 
resolution, fellow-citizens, and you will see that it was neither sustained 
nor opposed, upon party grounds. You will find many State-rights men 
voting for it, and only a few against it—many Whigs and White men for 
it, and only a few against it—many Administration and Union men for 
it, and only a few against it. This is the general complexion of all the 
votes upon the various propositions into which the resolution was divided. 
The only party that can' be said to have voted as a party , were the anti- 
Masons, and even they were divided, though almost all of them were de¬ 
cidedly against me. But, if you will look at the votes of the slaveholding 
States , (of whiqh an accurate and authentic statement is subjoined,) you 
will find, still more conclusively, that the resolution was neither sustain¬ 
ed nor opposed on party grounds. What are the facts, fellow citizens ? 
There are eleven slaveholding States in this Union. They are repre¬ 
sented in the lower House of Congress by about one hundred votes. 
Now, mark the fact. Out of upwards of ninety votes given, there were, 
upon some branches of the resolution, only ten or twelve nays, upon 
others only three or four, upon one of them none at all, making, upon an 
average, certainly not more than eight, with the single exception of the 
preamble, upon which they were nearly equally divided. Now, were all 
the slave-holding members who voted with me, administration men? 
This is the impression attempted to be created by the Telegraph. But, 
look at the votes again, fellow-citizens, and you will find, (with only one 
or two exceptions, here and there,) that all the Whigs of Maryland and 
Kentucky, all the White men of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennes¬ 
see—all the White men and Whigs of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
and Missouri, were all in favor of the resolution, as well as the Adminis¬ 
tration or Union men of Georgia and Virginia—and that I had, in truth, 
almost all the votes from every slaveholding State , without reference to 
party , except the one of which I am proud to call myself a son. With 
this state of facts, then, staring them in the face, how can my enemies 
allege that my resolution was carried by a party vote? The assertion 


10 


*is as ridiculous as it is utterly unfounded. The votes of the whole House, 
I and especially the votes of the slaveholding States, prove to demons¬ 
tration, that while the anti-masonic party alone opposed it as a party, 
t all other parties were united in its favor. Now, this general and 
‘united action was the very object that I aimed at. I did not offer the 
I proposition as a party measure. I did not propose it as a party man. I 
know no party in reference to slavery. I did not come here to agitate 
\ slavery upon party principles, or to make it an engine for the elevation 
jof one man, or the depression of another. I consider it far too serious 
r and solemn a subject to be tampered with for any such purposes as those. 
<1 came here as the representative of a slaveholding community , not to 
■make or unmake Presidents, not to produce sectional feuds and geogra¬ 
phical divisions in reference to slavery, but to unite, if possible, the whole 
i country in positive and efficient measures for the protection and security 
.of Southern rights. And I have done it. And if, for this , it shall be 
;my misfortune to incur the disapprobation of those from whom I have 
(never yet received any thing but kindness, I shall at least have the con¬ 
solation, of which nothing can deprive me, that, as I honestly believe 
fmy course to be the best for the South, so I shall not be responsible for 
the evils and disasters that may follow from one from which I sincerely 
Relieve that nothing but evil can result. 

I have been charged by the Telegraph with a desertion of my prin¬ 
ciples. I deny it, in the broadest and most emphatic terms in which I 
"can stamp denial upon a vile and unfounded calumny. Had the resolu¬ 
tion offered by myself, only been proposed by certain other gentlemen, 
all would have been w 7 ell. It would have been the true Southern course, 
:and the signal would have been instantly given for hymns of praise. 
jBut it was not proposed by them , and, therefore, in me, it is rank 
treason to the South. But here let me say, that I never did, and 
(never will, take my ideas of Southern interests from any of the gentle- 
'men to whom I now 7 refer. I have not forgotten the late contest of 
; South Carolina w 7 ith the Federal Government, nor the position which 
these gentlemen occupied in relation to that contest. I have not for¬ 
gotten the tariff acts, nor our State Convention, nor the proclamation of 
.the President; nor have I forgotten that, whilst I was hazarding every 
. thing dear to me throughout the whole of that memorable controversy, 
the gentlemen alluded to were devoted Jackson men, going the whole 
■ against the State rights party; nor have I forgotten that, only session 
‘ before last, I felt it my duty to defend the State-rights party of South 
Carolina against violent assaults made upon it by some of those very in¬ 
dividuals who now undertake to lecture me upon Southern principles. But 
( they must excuse me if I think I understand them at least as well as they 
do, and cannot recognise their right to sit in judgment on me. What, 

• then, is my offence? “ It hath this extent—no more”—that I have dared 
j to differ with the Telegraph (who, of course, cares more for South Caro- 
i lina than any man in it,) as to the best mode of action in reference to 
j slavery. But I ask the people of Charleston, calmly and coolly to con- 
f sider, and by this I am content to stand or fall, which is the best for them, 
i as slaveholders, whose vital interests are connected with this subject ? 
i Shall I make slavery a party matter? Shall I make it the basis of the 
i Presidential contest ? Shall I urge it as an engine of sectional divisions 
i and hostilities? Shall I take false and untenable ground, if not for the 


11 


purpose, at least with the certainty, of having theSouth defeated ? And, 
when the South is beaten, shall I then tell them that the main battle has 
been fought and lost, and thus enable the Telegraph to tell them that 
there is no alternative left but to make another issue on another ground? 
Shall I do this—or shall I tell them plainly and honestly, that the true 
contest is, not upon abstract theoretical points, but upon the whole subject 
of abolition; and that the true victory is, not to turn the memorials out 
of doors, (which w’ould only cause them to flow in upon us with tenfold 
magnitude and fury,) but to obtain such a practical and united vote 
against the abolitionists , as will not only tend effectually to put them 
down , by cutting off all their hopes forever , but also to enlist and per¬ 
petuate the patriotism and good feeling of the non-slaveholding States in 
favor of the South ? I ask them, calmly and candidly to consider, which 
is best ? 

I ought to apologise, perhaps, for the length of this communication. 
It is longer than I had intended to have made it. Charged as I am, 
however, with the most unworthy motives, I must solicit your serious and 
impartial consideration of the following points : 

Have I any interests or ties on earth other than those of the commu¬ 
nity in which I live ? Would I not, naturally, rather covet their praise, 
than wilfully incur their censure? What motive could /have to betray 
them, but my own destruction ? And can any one suppose that I aim at that ? 

Are all the slaveholding members w 7 ho voted with me, disloyal to the 
South 9 They were more than three-fourths of the whole delegation. Is 
it not as possible that they are right, as that the very few are who went 
against them ? 

Does any man believe that Richard J. Manning would surrender the 
rights of his constituents, upon slavery, for vile purposes of party ? Are 
there any men in whom the State-rights party of North Carolina have 
greater confidence then Rencher, Williams, and Deberry ? Are any men 
on earth more true to Virginia principles than Taliaferro, Robertson, and 
Claiborne ? Did not Generals Thompson and Campbell vote for that 
branch of my resolution declaring that interference w 7 ith slavery in the 
District of Columbia “ would be a violation of the public faith, and dan¬ 
gerous to the Union?” Is General Ashley unfaithful to Missouri? or 
Colonel White to Florida? cr Sevier to Arkansas? or Governor Johnson 
to Louisiana? But enough. If any of these men are traitors, I am 
perfectly content to share the appellation. 

Fellow-citizens: I have done. My fate is in your hands, and you will 
do with me as you please. Always grateful for kindness, I cannot cringe 
before unmerited censure. My heart acquits me of a thought or feeling 
but for your interest and welfare. You made me what I am, and what¬ 
ever I have, you gave me. I think of all the favors you have done me, 
and all, the honors you have given me, with emotions of the most heart¬ 
felt gratitude. I embrace this occasion again to thank you for the past; 
and, as for the future , I will only add that, while I would hail with de¬ 
light a full and free renewal of your confidence, I cannot ask forgiveness 
of a crime which I have not committed. 

I remain, very respectfully and truly, 

Your fellow-citizen 

H. L. PINCKNEY. 




STATEMENT 


OF THE VOTES OF THE SLAVE-HOLDING STATES, 


An accurate statement (taken from the yeas and nays as published in the Na« 
tional Intelligencer) of the votes of the Delegates from the slave-holding States, 
upon each and every branch of the resolution submitted by Mr. Pinckney, in rela¬ 
tion to the subject of the Abolition of Slavery. The resolution was divided, upon 
the motion of Mr. Vinton, and other gentlemen, into five separate propositions, 
upon each of which the vote was taken by yeas and nays. 

The first proposition was, that all the memorials which have been or may be pre¬ 
sented, praying the abolition of slavery in the District, and also the resolutions 
offered by an honorable member from Maine, (Mr. Jarvis,) with the amendment 
thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) together 
with every other paper or proposition that may be offered in relation to that subject, 
be referred to a select committee. 

Upon this proposition, the votes of the slave-holding States were as follows: 

^Maryland— Ayes, B. C. Howard, Daniel Jenifer, Isaac McKirn, Francis 
Thomas, James Turner, and George C. Washington—6. Nays, James A. Pearce, 
John N. Steele—2. 

Virginia —Ayes, James M. H. Beale, Walter Coles, Robert Craig, George W. 
Hopkins, Joseph Johnson, William McComas, William S. Morgan—7. Nays, 
James Bouldin, N. H. Claiborne, George E. Dromgoole, James Garland, George 
Loyall, Edward Lucas, John Y. Mason, Charles F. Mercer, John Patton, John 
Roane, John Robertson, John Taliaferro—12:'2 not voting. 

North Carolina —Ayes, Henry W. Connor, Edmund Deberry, M. T. Haw¬ 
kins, James McKay, William Montgomery, Abram Rencher, A. H. Shepperd, 
Lewis Williams—8. Nays, Jesse A. Bynum, James Graham, Ebenezer Pettigrew, 
W. S. Shepard— 4 ; 2 not voting. 

South Carolina —Ayes, H. L. Pinckney, Richard J. Manning, James Rogers 
—3. Nays, R. B. Campbell, W. J. Grayson, J. K. Griffin, J. H. Hammond, F. 
W. Pickens, Waddy Thompson—6. 

Georgia. —Ayes, J. F. Cleaveland, John Coffee, Seaton Grantland, Charles 
E. Haynes, J. Jackson, George W. Owens—6. Nays, Thomas Glasscock, Hop¬ 
kins Halsey, GeorgeM. Townes—3. 

Kentucky. —Ayes, Linn Boyd, W. J. Graves, Benjamin Hardin, A. G. Hawes, 
R. M. Johnson, J. R. Underwood, Sherrod Williams —7. Nays, Chilton Allan, 
John Calhoun, John Chambers, Richard French, John White—-5: one not voting. 

Tennessee.— Ayes, W. C. Dunlap, Adam Huntsman, Cave Johnson—3. Nays, 
John Bell, Samuel Bunch, W. B. Carter, John B. Forester, Luke Lea, A. P. 
Maury, Bailie Peyton, James Standifer—8: two not voting. 

Louisiana.— Ayes, General E. W. Ripley—1. Nays, Rice Garland, Henry 
Johnson—2. 

Mississippi.— Ayes, John F. Claiborne—1. Nays, David Dickson—1. 

Alabama.— Ayes, none. Nays, R. Chapman, Joab Lawler, F. S. Lyon, J. C. 
Martin—4: one absent. 

Missouri.— Ayes, General W. H. Ashley, A. G. Harrison— 2. Nays, none. 

Upon the above proposition, the Southern or slave-holding vote was, ayes 45, 
na y S 47—seven not voting. The vote of the whole House was, ayes 174, nays 48. 

2d. The second proposition was that the committee be instructed to report that 
Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the in¬ 
stitution of slavery in any of the States of this confederacy. 

Upon this the slave-holding States voted as follows: 

Maryland.— Ayes, Messrs. Howard, Jenifer, McKirn, J. A. Pearce, Steele, 
Thomas, Washington—7. Nays, none—one not voting. 

Virginia.— Messrs. Beale, Bouldin, Claiborne, Cole, Craig, Dromgoole, Gar¬ 
land, Johnson, Loyall, Mason, Mercer, Morgan, Patton, Roane, Taliaferro, Wise 
—16. Nays, Mr. Robertson—four not voting. 



14 


North Carolina. —Ayes, Messrs. Bynum, Cannon. Deberry, Graham, Haw¬ 
kins, McKay, Montgomery, Pettigrew, Readier, A. II. Shepperd, W. B. Shepard, 
Williams—12. Nays, none—one nut voting. 

South Carolina. —Ayes, Messrs. Pinckney, Manning, Rogers. Nays, none— 
the others not voting. 

Georgia. —Ayes, Messrs. Cleaveland, Coffee, Grantland, Haynes, Halsey, 
Jackson, Owens, and Townes—8. Nay, Mr. Glasscock—1. 

Kentucky. —Ayes, Messrs. Allan, Boyd, Chambers, French, Graves, Hardin, 
Hawes, Johnson, Underwood, White, Williams—11. Nays, none—two not voting. 

Tennessee —Ayes, Messrs. Bell, Bunch, Carter, Dunlap, Forester, Huntsman, 
Johnson, Lea, Maury, Shields, Standifer—11. Nays, none—two not voting. 

Louisiana— Ayes, Messrs. Johnson and Ripley— 2. Nay, Mr. Garland —1. 

Mississippi —Ayes, Messrs. Claiborne and Dixon—2. Nays, none. 

Alabama —Ayes, Messrs. Chapman, Lawler, Lyon, and Martin—4. Nays, 
none—one absent. 

Missouri —Ayes, Messrs. Ashley and Harrison—2. Nays, none. 

Upon the above proposition, the slave-holding vote was, ayes 78, nays 3—1G 
not voting. The vote of the whole House was, ayes 201, nays 3. 

3d. The third proposition was: That the committee be instructed to report that 
Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia. 

Upon this proposition the votes of the slave-holding States were as follows: 

Maryland— Ayes, Messrs. Howard, Jenifer, McKim, Pearce, Steele, Thomas, 
Washington—7. Nays, none—one not voting. 

Virginia —Ayes, Messrs. Beale, Bouldin, Claiborne, Coles, Craig. Dromgoole, 
Garland, Hopkins, Johnson, Loyall, Mason, McComas, Mercer, Morgan, Patton, 
Roane, Robertson, Taliaferro—18. Nays, none—three not voting. 

North Carolina —Messrs. Bynum, Connor, Deberry, Graham. Hawkins, Me 
Kay, Montgomery, Pettigrew, Bencher, A. H. Shepperd, W. B. Shepard, Lewis 
Williams—12. Nays, none—one not voting. 

South Carolina —Ayes, Messrs. Manning, Pinckney, and Rogers— 3. Nays, 
none—the others not voting. 

Georgia —Ayes, Messrs. Cleaveland, Coffee, Grantland, Haynes, Halsey, Jack- 
son, Owens, Townes—8. Nays, none—one not voting. 

Kentucky —Ayes, Messrs. Allan, Boyd, Calhoun, Chambers, French, Graves, 
Hardin, Harlan, Hawes, Johnson, Underwood, White, Williams, 13. Nays, none. 

Tennessee —Ayes, Messrs. Bell, Bunch, Carter, Dunlap, Forester, Huntsman, 
Johnson, Lea, Maury, Shields, Standifer—11. Nays, none—two not voting. 

Louisiana —Ayes, Messrs. Garland, Johnson, and Ripley—3. Nays, none. 

Mississippi —Ayes, Mr. Claiborne—1. Nays, none—one not voting. 

Alabama —Ayes, Messrs. Chapman, Lawler, Martin, Lyon—4. Nays, none— 
one absent. 

Missouri —Ayes, Messrs. Ashley and Harrison—2. Nays, none. 

Upon the above proposition the slave-holding vote was, ayes 82, noes none_ 

15 not voting; of whom two are sick, and several out of the House. The vote of 
the whole House was, ayes 133, nays 47. 

4th. The fourth proposition was, (assigning the reasons for the preceding,) “ Be¬ 
cause it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous 
to the Union.” Upon this branch of the instructions, the votes of the slave-holdin° 
States were as follows: 

Maryland— Ayes, Messrs. Howard, Jenifer, McKim, Steele, Washington—5. 
Nays, none—three not voting. 

Virginia— Ayes, Messrs. Beale, Bouldin, Claiborne, Cole, Craig, Dromgoole, 
Garland, Hopkins, Johnson, Loyall, Mason, McComas, Mercer* Patton, Roane] 
Robertson, Taliaferro—17. Nays, none—four not voting. 

North Carolina— Ayes, Messrs. Bynum, Connor, Deberry, Graham, Hawkins, 
McKay, Montgomery, Pettigrew, Rencher, A. H. Shepperd, Williams—11. Nays] 
none—two not voting. 

South Carolina —Ayes, Messrs. Campbell, Manning, Pinckney, Rogers, 
Thompson—5. Nays, none—four not voting. 

Georgia— Ayes, Messrs. Cleaveland, Coffee, Grantland, Haynes, Halsey, John¬ 
son, Owens, Townes—8. Nays, none—one not voting. 

Kentucky— Ayes, Messrs. Allan, Boyd, Calhoun, Chambers, French, Graves, 
Hardin, Hawes, Johnson, White—9. Nays, Messrs. Allan, Underwood, Wil¬ 
liams—3. 


15 


Tennessee —Ayes, Messrs. Bell, Bunch, Carter, Dunlap, Forester, Huntsman, 
Johnson, Lea, Maury, Peyton, Shields, Standifer—12. Nays, none; the Speaker 
has no vote except upon a tie. 

Louisiana —Ayes, Messrs. Garland, Johnson, Ripley—3. Nays, none. 

Mississippi —Ayes, Mr. Claiborne—1. Nays, none—one not voting. 

Alabama —Ayes, Messrs. Chapman, Lawler, Lyon, Martin—4. Nays, none— 
one absent. 

Missouri— Ayes, Messrs. Ashley and Harrison—2. Nays, none. 

Upon the fourth division of the resolution, therefore, assigning the reasons why 
Congress should not interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, 
it will be seen that the votes of the members from the slave-holding States were, 
ayes 77, nays 3; 15 not voting. The vote of the whole House was, ayes 129, nays 74. 

On the fifth and last division of the resolution, directing the committee to draught 
such a report as, in their judgment, might be best calculated to sustain the just 
rights of the slave*holding States and of the people of the District of Columbia, and 
to allay excitement, repress agitation, &c., every slave-holding delegate (whose 
vote is recorded) voted in the affirmative; making between 80 and 90. The vote of 
the whole was, ayes 169, nays 6. 

The above authentic statement of the votes of all the slave-holding States is sub¬ 
mitted to the people of Charleston district for their enlightened consideration and 
impartial judgment. 

It is well understood that the Delegates from Florida and Arkansas would have 
voted in the affirmative throughout, had they been entitled to vote upon the ques¬ 
tion. 



' 











































1 































































































' 

























































<• 








































































































































































































































































' 




. 








































































. 














































































































































































♦ 

































* 














































































































